Religion is ONLY words, NOTHING else

[bulge]

So is politics.

Now riddle me this little boy, if you believe those words are so empty, then why do you consider them lethal?

Oh, and do you really expect us to take you half-seriously when all you do is snipe randomly whilst avoiding any real points of rebuttal? Because no offense, but grade schoolers seem to have more skill it interpolation than you do.

I agree with you grade schoolers know better, but the problem with them is they only produce more words about mere words giving perverted meanings to all those words. They give lethal contents to words and call it "theology". Some guys suicide themselves because they are gay and were raised as christians. That's the direct sequel of Augustinus and Thomas of Aquino.

 

[Kurn]

The gay-teenager suicide rate is appalling.

 

[Michael Luc]

Religion is ONLY a bunch of words, NOTHING else. Only EMPTY words without any meaning. Those words create other words called theology, doctrine or otherwise. The words god, allah, yaveh, believe, faith, believer, unbeliever,... are totally EMPTY.

I disagree. But even if that were the case, the words are full of love and hope. I'll take those words above all others.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree with you grade schoolers know better, but the problem with them is they only produce more words about mere words giving perverted meanings to all those words. They give lethal contents to words and call it "theology". Some guys suicide themselves because they are gay and were raised as christians. That's the direct sequel of Augustinus and Thomas of Aquino.

So when Bishop Augustine refused to follow the bidding of the Bishop of Rome and kick out all the people engaging ion pre-marital sex, that was "lethal"? When he taught that the power of the people of God on earth consists of love, that was "lethal"? When Aquinas taught that in all things, one ought to be gentle, that was "lethal"?
I suppose you consider that the instructions to welcome strangers, feed the orphans, care for widows and their children, and put others ahead of yourself that abound in the Bible to be "lethal" as well? And when Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers", that was "lethal"? When He said, "Love one another", that was lethal?

The only way you can portray all this as "lethal", bulge, is to read it the same way that Fred Phelps does.
I'm sad for you.

 

[Marvels]

What Kulindahr said.

Seriously Bulge, you're making an entirely new argument that's contradicting the very topic, that shockingly enough, you made.

This is quite the degree of stupidity you're displaying.

 

[turtle]

"And Nothing Else."

History can't be a complete reliving of the past, and most people looking at history have little time for anything but the briefest overview.

Those "highlights" will be the odd, unusual, difficult and different things which happened. Such "history" will be representative of the problems and difficulties of a place and time, but will not represent the ordinary or mundane, or anything which occurs, like much good does, on a very small scale.

Thus we have a history of the bad things the Christian Church has done and been, without a representative sample of the good that Church has also always done.

If there had been less harm done over the centuries, it wouldn't overshadow the good quite so much for so many.

The medaeval church was community center, school, hospital, community garden and welfare office. The number of people helped by this system is incalculable, but comes close to being the entire population of a continent for a millenium.

I think I begin to see a correlation between internal Church corruption and periods of spastic Church policy, but I am not at all sure. Church leadership had become quite corrupt by the tenth century, and I have to wonder if or how this ties in with the crusades. After significant refreshment and renewal, cynicism and corruption again began to grow after the great plague, and reached absurd dimensions by the fifteenth century, certainly a spur for the inquisition as well as for the reformation and counter reformation.

History distorts by omission, and for every corrupt cleric there were a dozen good fathers. For every life taken, unnumbered lives saved.

It is right for the Church to question itself. Other religions have not had the same failings.

But my friends don't have to be perfect. The Christian church, and religion in general, have done huge amounts of good, have been the locus of probably half the good ever done on earth. Christian churches aren't making as many mistakes today, though they are also not providing charity as much as they once did, it is perhaps more difficult in today's world. They have plainly repudiated many mistakes of the past. One of the bigger remaining mistakes the Churches are making, about homosexuality, bothers me, personally, and has hurt this poster, I imagine.

"Forgive us our Spasms, as we Adjust"

 

[Kulindahr]

It's impossible not to be aware of the foul evil done in the name of religion -- good point, turtle. But if I catch your drift, you're saying that to leap to the position advocated in the first post here is faulty, akin perhaps to not just recalling a certain year and model of car when the gas tank proves to be faulty, but shutting down freeways and condemning all vehicles with gas tanks.

And Jesus was aware of all this -- why else would "forgive us our sins" be right in the middle of the one prayer He ever taught?

 

[Royal Heart]

Religion is ONLY a bunch of words, NOTHING else. Only EMPTY words without any meaning. Those words create other words called theology, doctrine or otherwise. The words god, allah, yaveh, believe, faith, believer, unbeliever,... are totally EMPTY.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that religion is nothing but words, and that there is no metaphysical, philosophical, socio-political, psychological, or spiritual effects. In particular, can you prove that Buddhism and Taoism are only a bunch of words? (Because "religion" ≠ "christianity/judaism/islam")

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Good point!

Maybe we need a list of all religions, and see the evidence against each, in turn.

 

[Marvels]

^ Good point!

Maybe we need a list of all religions, and see the evidence against each, in turn.

Yeah, but our social lives would have to suffer dramatically for it.

 

[darcey]

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed. If words used by religions are empty, why so much heat in these responses? Andreus has given some more balanced responses which seem to focus on thinking rather than feeling. One's beliefs are one's beliefs & calling them by the name "empty" shows that one views words as having the power to change those beliefs. Maybe if we just live our own lives as lovingly as possible, it won't matter what "religion" says. when one is right one doesn't need validation. Peace

 

[Kulindahr]

But how does one know when one is right?

 

[Marvels]

When one conforms to the constructs of sanity, my friend.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's circular reasoning -- your can't define "sanity" unless you know you're right.....

 

[Marvels]

Hence, my point. What is right or wrong corresponds to an individual culture's own perspective. To us, it's insane that a person would load himself with explosives, hop into a bus, and kill a market full of people in the name of God. But to that person, not only is he working under the rationale that this is what his religion asks of him (not really, it was from a different book, not the Koran), he also believes it is right.

Asking who is right and who is wrong without any context to a situation of the cultural backdrop of the area where it happened is simply pointless.

 

[Kulindahr]

The person strapping explosives on himself to blow up others is declaring the absolute valuelessness of human life. He thus declares any human behavior whatsoever to be legitimate, from rape to serial murder, from arson to mass poisonings, from torture to cannibalism. Whatever else he may claim to believe, his actions declare that there is no morality, only power.

I don't care what your "situation" or "cultural background" is, that's wrong. Suicide bombing is on the same moral level as stealing someone's children to put on a spit and roast for dinner.

The only way that "context" can play a role where suicidal murder can be right is if there is no reality. And if there is no reality, anything is justified. And that's wrong -- so suicide bombing is wrong.



Addendum: by your view, there's no reason to protest about what President Bush is doing... or what Saddam Hussein did in using poison gas, etc.

 

[Michael Luc]

Religion is ONLY a bunch of words, NOTHING else. Only EMPTY words without any meaning. Those words create other words called theology, doctrine or otherwise. The words god, allah, yaveh, believe, faith, believer, unbeliever,... are totally EMPTY.

You're so wrong.

 

[Marvels]

Friend, you misunderstand.

Do we condemn an entire faction of humanity to being 'evil' even if most of them were indoctrinated into a climate of war the moment they are born?

And how do you know that a suicide bomber would no sooner eat his own father or rape a goat? And what stronger statement is there for a person than by the act of killing himself for expression? Are the monks who burned themselves in protest to that thing I don't recall also qualify as people who do not value life? Of course, it is a wretched thing to compare those who sacrifice themselves in a peaceful manner to those who take the whole marke with them, but still - - they all believed that what they did was right. A lot of people may not, but they did.

I do not condone terrorism, but I do not presume to label everything they do in simple black and white. That is what I meant to say when you asked who dictates what is right or wrong. It's culture.

Of course there is right to protest to what the world leaders are muckiting about. Just because I mentioned that a person's act may be justifiable in his own eyes (and to his friends, family, advisors, polls) does not mean it holds true for everybody. Which of course, puts us back right to the question you proposed in the first place.

Tell me, if everybody in the world knew for a fact what was right and what was wrong, and by that every single human being was raised with the same gauge of morality, will there still be conflict in the world?

 

[conrad]

But, going back to the original post, the contention that religion is only words shows a clear willingness to overlook a great deal of history.

Words do have potential power. If heard and acted upon the results may bring about change for good or evil. Any honest adherent to any religious faith can usually give you some of those words and will testify to their effect upon their lives.

Words are instruments of communication, vital to our power to reason and to develop new ideas and interpretations of old ideas.

You and I may not like some of the words under the heading of religion which we here. I hardly think it possible to deny the effect some of those words have had.

I am a Christian, but I do not approve of all the so-called words which fellow Christians use. King, Tutu, William Sloane Coffin all used words to make very strong points relating to their understanding of their religion and their obligations as Christians. All three demonstrated the power of words.

Great words in the area of religion are great because of the message they carry:
Christ is Lord; For God so loved the world....; Your sins though many are forgiven; Christ died for our sins; Go and sin no more; Thy kingdom come (and) Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven; Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. All these words have power for many, many, people.

They may have no effect on you, but let's not deny their power as means of communication and a whole lot more.

Peace!

 

[wentworth]

Religion is ONLY a bunch of words, NOTHING else. Only EMPTY words without any meaning. Those words create other words called theology, doctrine or otherwise. The words god, allah, yaveh, believe, faith, believer, unbeliever,... are totally EMPTY.

We could say that about Secular Humanism as well.